Bible Commentaries

Arthur Peake's Commentary on the Bible

Psalms 110

Verses 1-7

CX. We may with some confidence refer this Ps. to 141 B.C., when Simon the Maccabee prince was accepted by the people as supreme Governor, though he was not a descendant of David, and as High Priest, though he was not a descendant of Aaron's first-born (see 1 Maccabees 14:35). To Jonathan first the double dignity belonged. But Simon owed his dignity as High Priest to his own people, and not, like his brother Jonathan, to the favour of a foreign potentate (p. 608). The idea of supreme priesthood and supreme secular rule over Judah being united in the same person does not appear elsewhere in the OT except in Jeremiah 30:21, a very late and possibly a Maccabean passage. These arguments are clinched by the fact that the oracle beginning "Sit thou" forms an acrostic on Simon's name. The Maccabees only needed a prophetic sanction for their inevitable changes in the constitution (1 Maccabees 14:41 ff.), and the first four verses of this Ps. supply the desideratum.

Psalms 110:1-4. The twofold dignity of the royal priest.

Psalms 110:1. The Lord, i.e. Yahweh, saith unto my Lord, i.e. to the earthly ruler: here Simon.

Psalms 110:3. in the day of thy power: i.e. thy proclamation as governor.—in holy attire (mg.): i.e. in the High-priestly vestment.—from the womb of the morning: i.e. from the very beginning of the proclamation.

Psalms 110:3 c. i.e. the enthusiasm of the people makes the ruler young again.

Psalms 110:4. Simon is to be priest and prince "for ever," i.e. for his lifetime. Melchizedek is mentioned because, though not a Jew, he was both priest and king and neither by hereditary descent (Genesis 14:13 ff.).

Psalms 111:6 f. The warrior's victories. We do not know what the victories were, and some of the language is strange.

Psalms 110:7 is generally taken to mean that the warrior is so eager that he does not wait to eat and drink in the common way. He drinks from the first brook that he sees, and so recovers strength. But why should a very plain thing be expressed in such a pompous and enigmatic style?

Comments



Back to Top

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first!

Add Comment

* Required information
Powered by Commentics
Back to Top